Forgotten and Concealed: The Emblematic Cases of the Assyrian and Romani Genocides
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By exploring how the Assyrian and Romani genocides came to be forgotten in official history and collective memory, this paper takes a step towards redress for years of inadvertent neglect and deliberate concealment. In addressing the roles played by scholars and nations, and the effect of international law and government policy, it notes the inaccessibility of evidence, combined with a narrow application of definitions of victim groups, and a focus on written proof of perpetrator intent. Continuing persecution of survivors in the aftermath of the genocides, and government actions to erase the genocides from history, are common to both cases. The dimension of a comparative analysis between two emblematic “hidden” genocides shows that there are many similarities in the process of forgetting that occurred in their respective aftermaths. Developing an understanding of how these genocides came to be ignored and forgotten may provide a foundation for genuine acknowledgment and redress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it